tv [untitled] March 12, 2013 3:00am-3:30am PDT
>> we are looking forward for what we are talking about and so congratulations for everybody that worked on that. >> thank you, any other public comment? >> it is closed. >> that is what happens with the gavel sometimes. >> okay, i'm taking commissioners, i'm taking an item out of order, item 7, will now become item 2, and it is discuss and possible action regarding file number 1 21065, legislation changing the planning code to create the polk street alcohol use and tobacco paraphernalia restrictions. and to discuss that, supervisor chiu's office. >> good evening, commissioners. >> thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to come here and talk to you about our legislation, my name is
any, chan i am a david khao*u. >> the lower polk street corridor which is in the supervisor's district spans from fer elstreet to polk street and it has a lot of great night life, but we have heard that have been quality of life issues in the corridor because of a saturation of liquor, establishments and in this section of lower polk street. the planning department has provided us data about exactly how many liquor licenses exist in this span of 6th streets and the side streets, there are about 45 existing alcohol permits in the 6-block region. and if we also include middle polk street. which goes up to fillbert street and we are laobing at a total of 121 liquor licenses.
and so we do what we have heard from the neighborhood and, what we do feel is that we have received a saturation point, and that is why we are proposing some planning controls to limit new alcohol licenses coming into this area. and so, we worked with the lower polk neighborhood association and polk street residents to create this legislation called the lower polk street restricted use district and we looked at other restricted and use districts that exist in the planning codes and like the divisedero rud and looked at some of those policis in some of the planning controls within those regions. so modeling off of some of these other rud wes created legislation that would essentially cap the existing number of liquor licenses in this lower polk street area. and we do, i want to specify
that we do make exceptions for daytime establishments and restaurants. restaurants can apply for, liquor licenses in the area. but we are caping the new liquor licenses, especially for bars and liquor stores. the legislation does create flexibility for existing businesses and we want to insure that the existing businesses in the corridor continue to thrive and so we have put in a transferbility into it so if they want to transfer the liquor licenses they will have the ability to do that. to give you a sense of the time line of the legislation, we introduced it in late october. we have since presented to the small business commission a few weeks ago and would appreciate
your feedback tonight and we will hear the legislation along the polk street corridor as well as the commissioners here today and with josyln and so we have gotten a lot of feedback from a lot of stake holders and some of that feedback including the small business commission recommendation from a few weeks ago was to consider, i am sorry i am talking too close to the microphone, it was to consider a look at the city control in leui of a cap per bars, and that is instead of caping new licenses for bars, that we would like at distance controls. so that new, licenses would not come in within a certain feet of distance from an existing license. we have been looking at it with the planning department and plan to discuss that with you
all tonight and on the planning commission on the 14th and we will consider that. we are stishing the legislation, to create a balance between the night life and the residential quality of life. we are not to be very clear, we are not trying to diminish the night life, we very much appreciate the vibrantcy that the businesses have brought to our corridor but at the same time we want to do the best to address, the quality of life concerns coming from the neighborhood. we do realize that enforcement is a big aspect of this and we will work with the police department and the entertainment commission and others to make sure that we are addressing enforcement and in an adequate way. but we want to make sure that we also look at planning controls, to really, address head-on this issue of saturation and whether or not we have reached that saturation. so, that is my presentation, and very much, again, i
appreciate your feedback, and happy to take any questions that you have on the legislation. >> it has been a while since we met. this is from geary to california. >> it it is from oferell. >> and along polk and the side streets right off of polk. >> and of the permits. could you turn these down? >> they are done. >> of the witnesses that were there, the 45 licenses, do we know how many of them are on sale and how many of them are on sale? >> yeah, so i don't have, i should have the break down that i have is for 10, 21 licenses, 17, 41 licenses, 2, 42 licenses and 4, 44, and and 1, 78 license and so it is roughly, i
want to say, so, for restaurant 17, bars 19, 23, 33 for on sale. and ten... >> 48 are bars? >> yes. >> 4, 47s are food establishments? >> yes. >> as well as the wine and beer license, is that 17? >> which number? >> 41. >> 17. >> correct >> and those are just wine and beer that is not just hard alcohol. >> yes. >> and so on the hard alcohol licenses, for on-sale, you have a total of 14? >> yes. >> okay. and just for clarity, is this legislation, did you or are you still going to make the restaurants close at midnight? >> so that is in the original proposal and we have heard some
feedback from small business commission as well as others that it is not preferable to see a restriction on restaurants, for the hours. and we have heard that, you know, the restaurants can be an alternative to bars, especially if we are allowing them to operate past midnight. i think that is a good point for us to consider. and so, that is something that i think that we are very much open to amending. we do want to hear what the planning commission has to say, and what residents have to say. but, we have definitely heard that feedback about the hours being not a good restriction. >> and is there some limitation on the limited live permit as well. >> limited live permits are principally permit and full on entertainment is the... >> the commissioners, do you have any questions before feedback? >> commissioner akers? >> okay. would businesses then in the
transferring of the liquor licenses be able to sell that as part of their business? >> yes, that is correct. >> so, what is or what do you predict a license going for? and with these, if this were to pass and there were restrictions of new licenses, then, what value? >> i don't have a cost estimate for the value of an rud. or for a liquor license than what it would sell for post rud or post sud. that is something that i can find out based on how this has worked on others and i can provide that information for you. >> so just for your information, it inflates the value of the liquor license? >> all of those businesses would have just like a huge boom in their economic value? >> right. >> in their equity. >> so, there would be more
likely to report them? >> yeah. >> we have gotten feedback from... the question is asking how our existing merchants feel about the legislation? i think that folks do agree over all that we need to do something around the liquor licenses on polk street and i think that we have met with them just as recent as a week ago and heard back about the concerns about these conditions and i am sure that people appreciate the transferbility and have the issue of the hours and some of the entertainment. so, folks have said, some of the things they understand, and some of the things they prefer to see change and so there is a little bit of a difference of opinion depending on sort of the merchants verses the residents and what is the right solution, so again we are trying to balance the quality of life issues, with the keeping the quarter very vibrant issues.
>> so, i just... >> just the comment on something that you said, if the value of the liquor licenses in this district inflate, along with the values in other restricted districts like the mission, over all, liquor licenses in the city will inflate and bring them back up. so, i think that on the high side we once saw the liquor licenses going for about $140,000, $150,000. they have dropped down to $70,000 $65,000 for a while making it more affordable to own these kinds of businesses but this definitely will inflate the liquor licenses across the board. >> commissioner perez you are up next. >> thank you for being here and giving us an update. >> the question is the cap is that perpituity. or the period of time?
>> there is no time limitation right now in the current proposal and that is something that we can consider and i have heard some feedback from folks saying that they would like to see this for three years, and then to come back and do an evaluation of how it works and some time period to that effect and we are open to doing that as well. >> commissioner hyde. >> thank you very much for coming here, i really appreciate that. and so i was just wondering if you have an idea of roughly what the footage looked like as to the distance. >> excuse me, so anybody blocking the door, could you move to the other side of the room. it is a fire code thing. thank you very much. >> go ad,ahesorry. >> maybe you have a rough idea of what that footage will be. >> i do have a copy of a map of the corridor from the planning department and it has and it shows what 100 feet, 100 feet and 150 feet and 300 feet would look like, i could either pass
this around or try to put it up on a screen somewhere. you know, but 300 feet would be the same effect of the same cap or a ban. and 100 feet would be more permissive, 150 feet would be a medium level of permissiveness and you can take a look at the map and see what makes sense. i believe that the small business commission recommended 100 to 150 feet and that is something that we are looking at and that is the map that we will also discuss the planning. >> okay. and i just wanted to talk about you know the hours, like i think that stopping midnight, like one of the greatest things that we can do for people who have been out to clubs is have someplace for them to go or bar afterwards and eat something. and i was wondering you were talking about hours, stopping at say, saying like midnight, then it is going to be very difficult to sort of offer something at 3:00 as well. which is if we had places that
went to 3:00, my belief is that there would be more mitigation in some of the issues. >> i think that that makes sense, the intention with the hours was that we wanted to, i think that the neighborhood very much would want more restaurants, in the corridors especially also the restaurants that operate in the daytime, but of course, the restaurants that also operate in the nighttime. i think that there have been some concerns that restaurants with alcohol licenses, if they are not serving food in the nighttime is a defacto bar or club and i think that the language that you see before you, is an added protection to make sure that we are allowing the new restaurants to come in but we really want to make sure that they are a bonified and serving food and not just serving alcohol. do understand that we are want an alternative to bars and clubs in the corridor, and restaurants very much can provide that alternative and so we understand that the hours can be a restriction that might not accomplish what we are
originally thinking about. >> the full on license, which there are only four in that area. >> yes >> they have to serve food and alcohol. >> if they are open to midnight, they serve food to midnight if open to two in the morning they have to serve food to two in the morning. i don't know if that is true with the beer and wine, but the food establishments that serve any kind of alcohol are only 21 in that area. that is not a lot. right? i mean, okay, let me go to the other commissioners, first. >> commissioner lee? >> i just want to make a statement. you know, are you planning to have one last meeting with the merchants in the club owners, with the neighbors maybe? because i think at the last
meeting that i attended that a lot of them obviously were in the process and i know that you hear more from the residents, but, i kind of agree with them and when polk street kind of, everything shifted, there was a period of time when polk was very, there is no business on polk. i mean, and now those people that stood out, you know, they stayed and duked it out with rents and everything else. i have just feel that you should have at least a dialogue with some of those neighbors that are impacted with them. and make it a little bit so, i think that they are willing to meet with them. but they have this idea that they don't, the residents don't want to talk to them at all or they are totally unreasonable and i don't think that is the case. but i think that before you push this through, listen to what they have to say, because they were there, when polk street was dead. they stood it out, to where, know they probably lost money.
what i am afraid of with this moratorium, not only the liquor licenses going up, is the rents are going to go up. because then, only serve kind of use can go in there. i am glad that it is grandfathered in that existing places can keep their serving to two where i see in other districts where a new owner, or a place has been serving to two and suddenly the new owner has to stop at 12. and so that is kind of devalues the property as well as a business. so, >> right. to answer your questions, so i was i did meet with lower polk street existing merchants and bar owners and i believe bar owners and restaurant owners and which in commissioner lee was also a part of. very much agree that you know, we are i think a dialogue between neighborhood residents and leaders, and business owners would be a very fruitful conversation and we are working
towards scheduling that meeting as soon as possible. and definitely agree that dialogue will help. i think that some of it, will help us understand what more needs to be done on the enforcement level and then, the broader conversation is what, you know, what should be done around sort of the long-term changes. >> to...[mic] >> turn them back on one at a time. are they on? >> from my point of view, san francisco is a city, it is very
urban and growing and the mayor and the city is very willing to say that we have the lowest unemployment rate anywhere and the city is growing, and the cosmopolitan cities have to have a vibrant life and one of those things is food and so you go to any major city, especially for the european tourists who go out to dinner at 11 to have anyone close their restaurant at midnight is silly, if they have a liquor license and they are able to serve alcohol, the restaurants should be able to go as long as they want. here is the point they have to stop alcohol at two in the morning, but if they wanted to continue without alcohol, they would come to us for an extended hours permit. i do believe that restricting them to something, the abc let's you serve alcohol to 2:00
in the morning i think that is important that all of the food establishments should be allowed to serve alcohol to what the state allows. and that we should not further restrict them, i think that would impact their business in a negative way, and then the liquor license, is going up over all throughout the city will happen, probably within nine to 12 months of this going through. and if compounded and less areas, and for the people to be able to open new restaurants. and as commissioner lee stated, the rents go up as well. it would make it more difficult for these types of establishments to open in the city. and so, in the city that has dot coms and tourists as the primary residents and having food and drink available especially since the demographic is getting younger all of the time, for a longer
time, would be beneficial to the city over all. and i do know that some there has been some optician to these other ruds. that they are being looked at to be changed to be dissolved and no longer be ruds. so then, polk street would stand out as being one of a kind, you know. just to be as lenient as you possibly can. and still satisfy the residents for what they need is my comments on that. >> okay, okay, thank you. we very much appreciate that feedback, commissioner and i do i think that we have a similar objective and i don't think that we disagree. >> anybody else? >> i was going to make a comment about they are looking to dissolve, in the mission, the rud there as well. i mean, i was just wondering if they are looking to dissolve it in other areas, like is there another way that we could go about this, other than creating?
>> and i think that is why, we are looking at as opposed to a cap, the city control whether or not it could be one way to address the issue that still allows the licenses to move in the six month corridor and also for the new ones to come in spreading them out and to have the opportunity to the restaurants that serve in the daytime to come in and other types of businesss about and i think that the city controls would be one alternative to the cap of the feasible one that can accomplish what we are trying to accomplish, we are trying to stay in contact with the other supervisor offices especially with the changes of the mission. we will be collaborating with them to understand what is happening in the mission as
well. >> i think that what is happening there in terms of the night life is a great thing for the neighborhood and it is interesting to see how, you know, i think that when you have sudden change, so quickly, people will be, will, the reaction that they have to that change, whether they are for it or against it. i think that it is really challenging when you use these when you are dealing with the present day issues. it is great that that you have meeting on deck but i am curious on what your office is doing with dealing with the problems that the residents have today rather than saying ten years out we want to make sure that there are no more types of your businesses, those problems may continue regardless of what the land usage is. what are you guys doing? >> i think that we care about both, the present day issues and the issues and making sure that we talk to the business and residents and the police
department and making sure that they are adequately handling noise and public disturbance complaints that happened in the nighttime but we also want to be forward looking to your point. and i don't know if there is a magic number that tell us when something is saturated and not saturated but i think that we are trying to address that concern about whether or not we are going down a path where it is 45, 49 and 50, and i do understand that we cannot forecast the market or how many new licenses are going to come in the next year or two years or three years, i think that we want to mindful of how we are looking at land use as one way to do it and understanding that there will be consequences around the prices of the licenses and the rents and want to be mindful of that as well. and i think that the objective is to deal with the present day quality of life issue and deal with saturation and how do we
think about the long term. >> sure. thank you. >> all right, thank you. >> i was going to ask the public for public comment on this issue. on your report, we will take the public comment. >> thank you for having us here. >> i will hope the floor for public comment by the report from amy chan, with regard to the polk street corridor legislation, is there any public comment? >> okay. we have one, we have two. >> hi, commissioner, terance,
allen, a privilege to be a person in front of the commission, thank you for all of your great work by the way. >> several months ago the california music and culture association cmac sat down with the supervisor's office and began a series of out reach meetings with the neighborhood merchants and club and bar owners to discuss the issue that cmac felt very strongly that some of you have in fact reflected in your comments and that issue was that these land use changes are a bulky way to solve a fine grained problem and do nothing about this friday and saturday night. and so, we came up with a series of proposals that are most accurately incapsule ated by giving this commission and its regulatory side a little more authority and to create a level playing field between all of the types of businesses that are open late. now, this is not being fully vetted with the merchants and
the neighbors and the supervisor's office but i want to bring it forward as an alternate. >> if a business is opened at midnight and have an entertainment permit they have restrict restrictions and a lot of eyes are on them and there is a series of education and medation components available to them so that if they do slip out of what we considered to be the normal accepted behavior standards, they can be brought in without huge punitive measures being exercised. >> the problem is that if you have 48 with an entertainment license or a 47 with an entertainment license, next to an off sale premise with a liquor license, those two businesses with dramatically different standards by which they operate. if our problem is on the weekends after eleven or 12 at night, then we should do everything in our power to level the playing field so that all of the businesses open late at night are adhering to the same rules and also have the same benefits of this orgaz